The DOI matches its Crossref record; 81 of the 83 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Review: Alleviating loneliness in young people – a meta‐analysis of interventions
Open accessAbstract
Background: Loneliness is common among youth and is associated with poor physical and mental health, and poor educational outcomes. To date, there have been no meta‐analyses of interventions aimed at reducing loneliness among young people. Methods: We conducted meta‐analyses of single group and randomised control trials (RCTs) of studies published between 1980 and 2019, which measured loneliness as an outcome in youth ages 25 years or younger. Moderators, including sample demographics and intervention characteristics, that might affect intervention success, were examined. Results: A total of 39 studies (14 single group and 25 RCTs) were included, and we found evidence that youth loneliness could be reduced via intervention. Moderator analysis – including intervention characteristics, study quality and sample demographics – was also examined. Conclusions: While interventions were shown to reduce loneliness among youth, the interventions included in the meta‐analyses often targeted youth viewed to be at risk – for example those with health concerns – and rarely did the interventions target youth who reported loneliness. There is also no indication of whether youth experienced chronic or transient loneliness. In future work, interventions should be designed specifically for loneliness, with universal programmes helping youth manage their transient feelings of loneliness, and targeted interventions for those suffering from chronic loneliness. There is also a need to look at socioeconomic and other risk factors outside the individual for targeted interventions. Key Practitioner Message: There have been no meta‐analyses that have evaluated the effect of interventions for reducing loneliness among children and adolescents. We found intervention programmes targeted at youth are successful at reducing loneliness. Future interventions should be designed specially with loneliness in mind, with (a) universal programmes to help youth manage their experiences of transient loneliness, and (b) targeted interventions for youth reporting chronic loneliness. They should also examine the longer‐term outcomes of the interventions. Future interventions should be designed, evaluated and then documented using guidelines on how to write up an intervention evaluation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The pre-post design that we used in studies 3-5 for the measurement of loneliness is the standard approach to test the effect of interventions in the loneliness literature (e.g., Eccles and Qualter 2021; Poscia et al. 2018), because it affords more precise estimates of the effect of interventions (by calibrating the effect at the individual level) and because it enables assessing successful random”
From AI Companions Reduce Loneliness (2024) · cites this paper as Eccles and Qualter 2021
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“Social and emotional learning programs have shown promising results before the pandemic [73] and have been encouraged during the pandemic [74].”
From Loneliness and Well-Being in Children and Adolescents during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review (2023) · cites this paper as [73]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
(2000) · Cited by 9,198
Loneliness and Social Isolation as Risk Factors for Mortality: A Meta-Analytic Review
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., & Stephenson, D. (2015) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691614568352 · Cited by 6,043
Distribution Theory for Glass's Estimator of Effect Size and Related Estimators
Hedges, L. V. (1981) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164588 · Cited by 5,695
Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542
Hunter, J., & Schmidt, F. (2004) · doi:10.4135/9781412985031 · Cited by 3,023
Perceived social isolation and cognition
Cacioppo, J. T., & Hawkley, L. C. (2009) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.06.005 · Cited by 2,144
A Fail-Safe N for Effect Size in Meta-Analysis
Orwin, R. G. (1983) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164923 · Cited by 2,064 · cited 1×
“Visual inspection of funnel plots (see Figure S1) and an Orwin’s fail-safe N = 532 (Orwin, 1983) demonstrate no evidence of publication bias.”
MethodLipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1993) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.48.12.1181 · Cited by 2,033
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Borenstein M., 2013, Comprehensive meta‐analysis version 3
- 10.3102/10769986006002107 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3102/10769986008002157 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Holt‐Lunstad, J. (2024) · World Psychiatry · doi:10.1002/wps.21224 · Cited by 541
Loneliness from young adulthood to old age: explaining age differences in loneliness
Hawkley, L. C., Buecker, S., Kaiser, T., & Luhmann, M. (2022) · International Journal of Behavioral Development · doi:10.1177/0165025420971048 · Cited by 281
Buecker, S., Mund, M., Chwastek, S., Sostmann, M., & Luhmann, M. (2021) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000332 · Cited by 344
Hickin, N., Käll, A., Shafran, R., Sutcliffe, S., Manzotti, G., & Langan, D. (2021) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102066 · Cited by 293
Christiansen, J., Qualter, P., Friis, K., Pedersen, S., Lund, R., Andersen, C., Bekker-Jeppesen, M., & Lasgaard, M. (2021) · Perspectives in Public Health · doi:10.1177/17579139211016077 · Cited by 241
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Eccles, A. M., & Qualter, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Lancashire (GB)
- University of Manchester (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Eccles, Alice M.
- Venue
- Child and Adolescent Mental Health
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-05-13
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 17-33
- ISSN
- 1475-357X (ISSN-L)
- 1475-3588
- OpenAlex
- W3011588871
- Cited by
- 285
- References
- 83
- Citations by year
- 2026: 44 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 61 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 4
- FWCI
- 4.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Child and Adolescent Mental Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- CLOK (University of Central Lancashire) (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
- Keywords
- loneliness, youth, loneliness interventions, adolescents, children, chronic loneliness, targeted interventions, intervention effectiveness, mental health, social isolation
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Child, Humans, Loneliness, Mental Health
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
